From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Francois Romieu Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/3] e1000: fix shared interrupt warning message Date: Sun, 18 Feb 2007 00:19:49 +0100 Message-ID: <20070217231949.GB17396@electric-eye.fr.zoreil.com> References: <20070216223913.26963.76602.stgit@gitlost.site> <20070216223926.26963.52634.stgit@gitlost.site> <45D767C8.3040508@garzik.org> <45D769FD.4030508@intel.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: Jeff Garzik , netdev@vger.kernel.org, "Brandeburg, Jesse" , "Kok, Auke" , "Ronciak, John" To: Auke Kok Return-path: Received: from electric-eye.fr.zoreil.com ([213.41.134.224]:36355 "EHLO fr.zoreil.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S964910AbXBQXWP (ORCPT ); Sat, 17 Feb 2007 18:22:15 -0500 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <45D769FD.4030508@intel.com> Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: netdev.vger.kernel.org Auke Kok : [...] > It is suspected that workarounds in the _up() routine of e1000 can cause ^^^^^^^^^ > the receive unit to be enabled before we're all done initializing the > adapter data. An interrupt arriving before we're all done setting up > obviously causes problems. To fix, we postpone enabling interrupts > completely until the software intialization is finished. Call me dense but is there a chance that the same receive unit that should not be enabled now emits interrupts between e1000_up() and request_irq() ? -- Ueimor